Octopus Overlords

Perhaps (and at the end of the day, Biden is going to be the one that's going to make the decision on who to nominate into his cabinet). But given that they've backed out of their threats, it seems like this method hasn't given them anything but will hurt them from attacks like I mentioned.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 11:33 am Isn't Biden's cabinet already one of the most diverse ever? I'm all for increasing diversity whenever possible, but seems like this might be the wrong thing to be attacking the administration for.

I can't compare to other administrations but let's assume they weren't diverse (duh). This cabinet mostly reflects the current diversity in the United States with whites under represented somewhat (offsetting the inclusion of an Native American). This is dumb Democratic circular firing squad stuff IMO.

Edit: If they talked about the imbalance between men and women they'd have a little bit there but even that is a stretch. IMO Biden's people actually factored in recent demographics to make these inclusions. It lines up very strongly.

On a separate note, @stimpy's very serious concerns have at least one voice in Congress.

Edit: With the very appropriate comment attached.

https://twitter.com/JohnDesrocher1/stat ... 8931121157

His cabinet seems pretty diverse to me, and I won't even compare it to previous cabinets. Just standing on its own, seems pretty diverse.

However, I can empathize with the frustration of having the administration touting diversity, and YOUR particular brand of diversity is not represented (or not well, I have no idea if any Asian Americans are in there or not). I just don't think you can legit say it's not diverse.

There's a side issue: A diverse potential candidate often isn't considered because they're never able to gain enough visibility. In other words, if the #1 most competent person for a job happens to be non-white (or even non-male), there's a good chance that nobody knows they're there because they've never been given the chance to prove it. There is a wealth of expertise and ability that's hidden, and it's worth it to, maybe, push some of the cloud cover out of the way to see what we've been missing.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:06 pm His cabinet seems pretty diverse to me, and I won't even compare it to previous cabinets. Just standing on its own, seems pretty diverse.

However, I can empathize with the frustration of having the administration touting diversity, and YOUR particular brand of diversity is not represented (or not well, I have no idea if any Asian Americans are in there or not). I just don't think you can legit say it's not diverse.

The US Trade Rep is Asian and Tanden -- prior to being kiboshed over nonsense -- is Asian as well. The back of envelope math nearly approximates the current racial make up of the United States. 0.2% of the Americans are Pacific Islanders. 5.6% are Asian and/or Pacific Islander. The current make up of the cabinet and cabinet level position would mean 2 out of 23 have at least some Asian heritage and it was nearly 3.

Demanding a Pacific Islander is not helpful considering it took 200 years to get a native American into the cabinet. And that almost didn't happen. Sometimes you have to live in reality and not make a fuss that has more downside than upside.

I think Duckworth pushing for more Asian-American representation is worthwhile, but the step of saying you'll vote no on all other nominees is where it goes wrong. It's inherently either meaningless or crazy. Like, if her vote isn't needed for any other nominees then it's mostly meaningless grandstanding. If a qualified nominee is 50-50 on votes, would she really torpedo them if she thinks that they're qualified only because they're not Asian?

El Guapo wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:30 pm I think Duckworth pushing for more Asian-American representation is worthwhile, but the step of saying you'll vote no on all other nominees is where it goes wrong. It's inherently either meaningless or crazy. Like, if her vote isn't needed for any other nominees then it's mostly meaningless grandstanding. If a qualified nominee is 50-50 on votes, would she really torpedo them if she thinks that they're qualified only because they're not Asian?

I think it prompted a behind the scenes conversation and served its purpose. From some of the articles on this the concern was more representation at the cabinet level but also there was a lack of inclusion of the AAPI population in certain polling data which may have implications for shaping policy. Also I believe a staffer said to Duckworth that she should be happy that Harris is the VP and Duckworth essentially should be satisfied with that. Angering a Senator needlessly is not wise...

$iljanus wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:44 pm Angering a Senator needlessly is not wise...

And it's not like Duckworth is one who is going to just be quiet and accept (what someone tells her is) her place.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:30 pm I think Duckworth pushing for more Asian-American representation is worthwhile, but the step of saying you'll vote no on all other nominees is where it goes wrong. It's inherently either meaningless or crazy. Like, if her vote isn't needed for any other nominees then it's mostly meaningless grandstanding. If a qualified nominee is 50-50 on votes, would she really torpedo them if she thinks that they're qualified only because they're not Asian?

It's worthwhile. However practically I agree it makes little sense and I'll add on taking this disagreement public was ill advised.

I think I'll just post this and leave it at that...

In a clip that has been widely shared online, McCain says: "If you have someone more qualified who happens to be a white straight person who has more experience in whatever field they're being nominated for than a minority with less experience, are we in a place where this matters?

"We're going to a place where even if people need money, even if people are qualified to get into Ivy Leagues, race and gender is more important than your skill qualifications, the content of your character. It is not what Martin Luther King Jr. preached. I think this is a very, very slippery slope."

Meghan McCain: "We’ve only had one Asian American host co-host host this show. Does that mean one of us should be leaving because there’s not enough representation? We're talking about -- is identity politics more important than the qualifications for the job?" pic.twitter.com/0nN1ilB9Nn
— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) March 24, 2021

She added: "The View is 25 years old next year. We've only had one Asian American host, co-host this show [Lisa Ling, from 1999 to 2002]. So does that mean that one of us should be leaving at some point, because there's not enough representation?

"We're talking about, is identity politics more important than qualifications of the job, and I think that's a question going forward that the progressive left is going to have to reconcile."

This statement led many people to ask how McCain, daughter of the late Senator John McCain got her job on the ABC show. Among those to criticize her was New York Times opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie, who tweeted: "If I owed my career to my last name, I simply would not talk about anyone's qualifications."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/megha ... r-BB1eXuGO

Oh and Lisa Ling is both Asian and quite qualified as a journalist vs, well, you Meghan McCain, daughter of the late Sen McCain. Here's the clip from The View:



And from a WaPo article:

“Is identity politics more important than the qualifications for the job?” McCain asked on the show.

That question raised eyebrows, as some wondered if McCain had implied that Asian women were not qualified to join the show.

“What underlies that question is this assumption that there are people of color who are not qualified, that you can’t find people of color who are qualified,” said OiYan Poon, an associate professor affiliate for educational policy studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “That is patently false and is quite frankly a racist assumption.”

People of color can frequently fill roles they are overqualified for, Poon said in an interview, because they are not afforded opportunities for advancement. She pointed to Ling, who began her career as a reporter at age 18.

Women and people of color also have few pipelines to jobs in certain industries dominated by White men because fewer opportunities for mentorship exist, said Vivian Louie, director of the Asian American Studies Program and Center at Hunter College.

“That’s not only applying to Asian Americans but all people of color,” Louie said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/20 ... sian-view/

It's tiresome.

Identity is viewership is EVERYTHING in media. Meghan McCain was selected to bring in white conservative viewers. Shows how little she knows.

Zarathud wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:22 pm Identity is viewership is EVERYTHING in media. Meghan McCain was selected to bring in white conservative viewers. Shows how little she knows.

Well her comments are working as designed.

What's worse?
Going to The View for political or social analysis or Fox?

stimpy wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:42 pm What's worse?
Going to The View for political or social analysis or Fox?

It's obvious that I don't agree with Meghan's comments but the value that I find in her comments is that there were other voices on the show that gave some good arguments about how wrong she was. And it didn't degenerate into a shouting match. But she's still wrong.

So Biden finally had a press conference. Finally! What a relief. It was a shit show and not because of Biden. Biden was asked zero questions about the pandemic or the economy. He was questioned about 2024 plans (he says he is running) and actually answered an important question about GOP voter suppression which he gave a fiery response to. But many of the questions overall were ridiculous click bait stuff. To paraphrase one, "Are you going to run against Trump?" Really? That's the best you have for this utterly important press conference?

Of course instantly he was called senile. I watched the whole thing. He was anything but confused.

https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1375153632824426498

malchior wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:05 pm So Biden finally had a press conference. Finally! What a relief. It was a shit show and not because of Biden. Biden was asked zero questions about the pandemic or the economy. He was questioned about 2024 plans (he says he is running) and actually answered an important question about GOP voter suppression which he gave a fiery response to. But many of the questions overall were ridiculous click bait stuff. To paraphrase one, "Are you going to run against Trump?" Really? That's the best you have for this utterly important press conference?

Have to imagine that all news ratings have tanked since January. They need Trump back in the spotlight somehow, even if it's just Biden talking about him.

Sure. But they could have done that by asking a question about the 1/6 insurrection which they also didn't do. This is why malchior drinks.

Edit: I forgot the several questions about the 'border crisis'. What was clear was that GOP narratives pretty much control the press. Which is crazy since they just tried to end our democracy. Whatever. Again this is why I drink.

I watched most of the press conference, and there were a couple of times where Biden acted a little foggy. Enough so that I cringed knowing the right-wing media would be jumping all over it.

However, I think he was also trying very hard not to ramble, and would sometimes catch himself and stop if he felt his answer was getting too long-winded.

YellowKing wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:55 pm I watched most of the press conference, and there were a couple of times where Biden acted a little foggy. Enough so that I cringed knowing the right-wing media would be jumping all over it.

However, I think he was also trying very hard not to ramble, and would sometimes catch himself and stop if he felt his answer was getting too long-winded.

That was my impression too. He was stopping for a moment to think through what he wanted to say. He is a stutterer. That is NORMAL. It's so aggravating since it is very much rooted in mean-spiritedness.

I think we are mature enough to admit that the man is old, and tends to behave as an old person. It takes NOTHING away from him, IMO, or his service to the country to date. This has been my concern about him as a nominee since day 1.

I'm fully aware and empathetic of his stuttering issue. Nothing but respect for what he has been able to accomplish in a career that demands almost continual public speaking.

But the stuff I am seeing and have seen DOES seem to be age, not speech related.

I support the man and his administration 150% but was dispirited to hear him say he planned to run again. I think that's a mistake. I think maybe we NEEDED "Elder Statesman" after 4 years of "Man Child" but he is already obviously worn the hell out. And it's just March! (and of COURSE he is!! Who wouldn't be, doing what he does, at that age! Just the mental part alone is going to wipe out a normal person...not even mentioning foolishly running up airplane stairs)

Stating at this point he's a one-term president will only encourage his opponents to make the entire thing a lame duck presidency.

Isgrimnur wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:36 pm Stating at this point he's a one-term president will only encourage his opponents to make the entire thing a lame duck presidency.

That's a point I had not considered. Are you suggesting it's all a ruse, sir?

OTOH, I'm not sure his announcing a run or not would actually change the level of already ridiculous obstruction that the GOP has honed to an impressive craft. It is their way.

I didn’t think there was enough genuflecting towards President Biden during today’s cabinet meeting...

No modern President is ever going to say they aren't going to run again 2 months into a new administration. For a lot of reasons. If they were going to do that it would almost certainly would have been part of the campaign. Why would they want to tie their hands that way without any real gain?

$iljanus wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:49 pm I didn’t think there was enough genuflecting towards President Biden during today’s cabinet meeting...

HA! That was the first thing I thought about when I was listening to the description on NPR.

It would have been immature as hell, but wouldn't it have been funny had he asked them all to re-enact the ridiculous Trump "The First Supper" scene, verbatim? Or maybe just crank it up a notch. Just ONE epic Trump trolling...that's all I ask. Then serious biz the rest of the time.

I THANK GOD EVERY DAY THAT ME, A LOWLY SERVANT, WAS CHOSEN BY YOU, OUR GREAT LEADER, TO SERVE AT YOUR CONVENIENCE AND WHIM. THANK GOD FOR TRUMP?!!? I SAY NAY. THANK TRUMP....FOR GOD!!!!!!

malchior wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:50 pm No modern President is ever going to say they aren't going to run again 2 months into a new administration. For a lot of reasons. If they were going to do that it would almost certainly would have been part of the campaign. Why would they want to tie their hands that way without any real gain?

Absolutely. Or to put it more succinctly: yes. It's all a ruse. I don't see him running again. If he does, it's a mistake.

When I see Jen Psaki do a news conference its hits pretty hard that wow there really are some smart folks who are actually adults in DC. From the last admin I wasn't sure it wasn't all silly children running it up there.

malchior wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:50 pm No modern President is ever going to say they aren't going to run again 2 months into a new administration. For a lot of reasons. If they were going to do that it would almost certainly would have been part of the campaign. Why would they want to tie their hands that way without any real gain?

Yeah, saying that he's planning to run again doesn't mean that he's planning to run again. I don't think he will, but he needs to keep that prospect open (while quietly grooming Harris for the job).

Does it ever cross any of your minds that maybe, just maybe, some of the people that voted for Trump were not and are not racist, gun toting, anti-government, anti-Democrat, mind washed morons?

That maybe, just maybe, they were just tired of being let down by life long government jobbers that seemed to be moving further and further away from working for and caring about We The People and thought, "you know what? Lets give it a shot and see if things can be shaken up and changed for the better." Did it happen? In some ways. Things have certainly changed. Not saying for the better, but I do think it woke alot of politicians up to the fact that there are alot of disenfranchised people out there that are sick of business, or lack thereof, as usual from our government.

Was Trump a good President? Not really. Did he blow up the world? No.
Some things he did were good. Some not so good. Welcome to politics.

Some of you all need to get over thinking that anyone and everyone that voted for him is the enemy.
I can only assume there are those in charge of things that want nothing more than that so we stay divided.

You're right the people giggling at him calling it the China virus and storming the capital are totally not racist aholes and are just misunderstood.

stimpy wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:24 pm Does it ever cross any of your minds that maybe, just maybe, some of the people that voted for Trump were not and are not racist, gun toting, anti-government, anti-Democrat, mind washed morons?

"If 9 people sit down at a table with 1 Nazi without protest, there are 10 Nazis at the table".

Same diff.

stimpy wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:24 pm Does it ever cross any of your minds that maybe, just maybe, some of the people that voted for Trump were not and are not racist, gun toting, anti-government, anti-Democrat, mind washed morons?

That maybe, just maybe, they were just tired of being let down by life long government jobbers that seemed to be moving further and further away from working for and caring about We The People and thought, "you know what? Lets give it a shot and see if things can be shaken up and changed for the better." Did it happen? In some ways. Things have certainly changed. Not saying for the better, but I do think it woke alot of politicians up to the fact that there are alot of disenfranchised people out there that are sick of business, or lack thereof, as usual from our government.

I think most Democrats do feel that government has been prevented from being effective at improving people's lives. The difference is that, while Republicans (ever since Reagan 1980) see government as inherently ineffective, Democrats see Republican obstruction and anti-government ideology as the real problem.

Does it ever cross your mind that a well-functioning government might actually be the best means of effecting positive change and making life better for We the People? As we saw under FDR and Truman and JFK and LBJ? And even (despite tremendous Republican efforts at sabotage) under Clinton and Obama?

Can you see how, after four years of utter incompetence and graft and dishonesty under Trump, people might enthusiastically support Biden in his efforts to govern America towards actual improvement?

stimpy wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:24 pm Does it ever cross any of your minds that maybe, just maybe, some of the people that voted for Trump were not and are not racist, gun toting, anti-government, anti-Democrat, mind washed morons?

Agreed. Some of them indeed have dirty minds.

stimpy wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:24 pm Does it ever cross any of your minds that maybe, just maybe, some of the people that voted for Trump were not and are not racist, gun toting, anti-government, anti-Democrat, mind washed morons?

It depends.

For those that owned up to the mistake and voted against Trump in 2020, I can agree with your hypothesis.

Those that didn't? Nope.

stimpy wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:24 pm Does it ever cross any of your minds that maybe, just maybe, some of the people that voted for Trump were not and are not racist, gun toting, anti-government, anti-Democrat, mind washed morons?

Absolutely, the first time.

And if they voted for him the second time, then they were knowingly standing with and supporting racist, gun toting, anti-government, anti-Democrat, mind washed morons.

stimpy wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:24 pmDoes it ever cross any of your minds that maybe, just maybe, some of the people that voted for Trump were not and are not racist, gun toting, anti-government, anti-Democrat, mind washed morons?

Some. Sure. There were people who held their nose and voted for him. But those weren't for the greatest reasons either. Still most of them fit in the description above.

As others said maybe we might give them a pass on the first election. Even though anyone with a brain saw before the first election that he was an dangerously idiotic narcissist who was manifestly unfit for office. Despite your characterization that he didn't blow up the world he is arguably the worst President in American history. And the deplorables built an adoring cult around one of the worst people in the world. He has zero positive traits. He is a monster. He ran the worst run and most corrupt administration in modern American history. Then he killed a half million people and couldn't even pretend to mourn for them.

And those people voted for him again. When he lost, he refused to do his duty as a President and accept defeat and instead tried to negate the election. Then some of them tried to overthrow our democracy and they cheered them or justified it. Many have lied about what happened ever since. They confirmed everything bad we thought about them and then some.

Anybody who's still carrying a torch for Florida Man is my enemy, and the enemy of democracy. The 1/6 insurrection drew that line.

I agree that he has a strong shot at Worst President Ever. Birx and others have said that 100k or so deaths were unavoidable. A good portion of the rest are at his feet. His policies, to the extent that he had any, increased inequality, exacerbated global warming, inflamed racism and xenophobia, alienated our allies and emboldened our adversaries, looted the treasury, fleeced his supporters, and irritated the shit out of me.

Because I'm a big picture kind of guy I started a thread to acknowledge his accomplishments. It barely went two pages and only a fraction of the posts were in good faith, but please do add to it if you've got anything.

malchior wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:13 pmAnd those people voted for him again.

Yup. This is where anyone who claims to have voted "against Biden, but not for Trump" or voted out of party loyalty or voted because of one issue the GOP supports a certain way is still a sack of shit.

Vote for him once, you made a serious error in judgment. Vote for him a second time, knowing exactly how he runs things, and you're at worst complicit in his racist, anti-American behavior - if not wholly supporting them. It puts you right at the same table.

The option was to take a stand for decency and not vote. 74 million people in the US cast their votes to support racism, corruption, and divisive hate. I give them no benefit of the doubt. They had 4 years of proof that the man they adored was human garbage.

Even the GOP can't make valid claims like that against (the vast majority) of Democrats, let alone the leaders of the party. They have to attack stumbling up the stairs, pausing to consider and answer, and a man's dogs to look for ammunition against the sitting president. It takes a wild conspiracy theory with zero proof to paint Biden as anything other than a decent human being. Florida Man gave us proof on the daily that he was vile scum, from mocking handicapped people to lusting after his daughter to having his sycophants lick his anus before meetings to opposing his own intelligence in support of our historic global threats to well... the list just goes on and on and fucking on.

stimpy wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:24 pmDoes it ever cross any of your minds that maybe, just maybe, some of the people that voted for Trump were not and are not racist, gun toting, anti-government, anti-Democrat, mind washed morons?

No free passes when the horror show you rally behind isn't even trying to pretend to be a good person. No.

His supporters may not all be all "racist, gun toting, anti-government, anti-Democrat, mind washed morons" but each of them, to a person, is at least one of those if not several at once. You cannot support a racist without being a racist. You cannot support someone who's anti-democracy without being a fascist. You cannot support a cruel sack of shit without being a cruel sack of shit.

I will never, in my life, think back and believe I judged these people too harshly.

The part that bugs me most is that I now know that America harbors at least 74 million people with completely broken moral compasses, many of whom consistently declare moral superiority.